But it does not offer any substantive reason why a forty-five-day period is actually preferable, or otherwise acknowledge the extensive line of cases where a ninety-day period sufficed.See Waters v. Pizza to You, LLC, No. 3:19-cv-372, 2020 WL 1129357 (S.D. Ohio Mar. 9, 2020); Godsey v. Airstream, Inc., No. 3:19-cv-107, 2020 WL 502550, at *5 (S.D. Ohio Jan. 31, 2020); Casarez v. Producers Serv. Corp., No. 2:17-cv-1086, 2018 WL 2389721, at *8 (S.D. Ohio May 25, 2018); Conklin v. 1-800 Flowers.com, Inc., No. 2:16-CV-675, 2017 WL 3437564, at *6 (S.D. Ohio Aug. 10, 2017; Myers, 2016 WL 11501744, at *2; Fenley v. Wood Grp. Mustang, Inc., 170 F.Supp.3d 1063, at 1075-76 (S.D. Ohio 2016) (noting courts' “overwhelming acceptance of 90-day opt-in periods”); Atkinson v. TeleTech Holdings, Inc., No. 3:14-CV-253, 2015 WL 853234, at *1 (S.D. Ohio Feb. 26, 2015).
Other courts have rejected this argument, and this court does as well. See, e.g., Bradford v. Team Pizza, Inc., No. 1:20-cv-60, 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 113681, at *21 (S.D. Ohio June 29, 2020) (citing Waters v. Pizza to You, LLC, No. 3:19-cv-372, 2020 WL 1129357, at *3 (S.D. Ohio Mar. 9, 2020); Colley v. Scherzinger Corp., 176 F. Supp. 3d 730, 735 (S.D. Ohio 2016) ("Including the case caption is not misleading nor a judicial endorsement of the lawsuit.")). 2.
Moreover, as plaintiff represents, this case caption has been approved in similar pizza delivery driver cases. See, e.g., Waters v. Pizza to You, LLC, No. 3:19-cv-372, 2020 WL 1129357, at *3 (S.D. Ohio Mar. 9, 2020). Therefore, the case caption as currently written in the proposed notice is sufficient.